Difference between revisions of "Props 2010/22/"
Truekahuna (talk | contribs) |
Truekahuna (talk | contribs) (→Comments) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= PROPOSITION 22 -- LOCAL GOVERNMENT = | = PROPOSITION 22 -- LOCAL GOVERNMENT = | ||
''Prohibits state from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting use of revenues dedicated to local government services, community redevelopment projects, and transportation projects and services. Prohibits the state from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Major funding support provided by League of California Cities and California Alliance for Jobs (a group including Associated General Contractors, Operating Engineers, Carpenters Union, and Association of Engineering Construction Employers).'' | ''Prohibits state from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting use of revenues dedicated to local government services, community redevelopment projects, and transportation projects and services. Prohibits the state from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Major funding support provided by League of California Cities and California Alliance for Jobs (a group including Associated General Contractors, Operating Engineers, Carpenters Union, and Association of Engineering Construction Employers).'' | ||
| − | + | ||
== Proposed GPCA Position == | == Proposed GPCA Position == | ||
GPCA urges a "No" vote on this matter | GPCA urges a "No" vote on this matter | ||
== Analysis == | == Analysis == | ||
| − | For Greens | + | For Greens and Progressives this proposition appears to be a good thing: local levels of government are presumably more responsive to local issues therefore this will lead to more grassroots control of the purse. And there is no doubt that the state government has been somewhat high-handed recently in its approach to struggling cities and counties. |
However, this proposition is just one more example of "budgeting by ballot-box". We elect representatives to go to Sacramento and make budget decisions. That is how our Republic is supposed to work. And if those representatives cannot get the job done, then we go to the polls and replace them (of course, we naturally believe these replacements should be Greens). | However, this proposition is just one more example of "budgeting by ballot-box". We elect representatives to go to Sacramento and make budget decisions. That is how our Republic is supposed to work. And if those representatives cannot get the job done, then we go to the polls and replace them (of course, we naturally believe these replacements should be Greens). | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The provisions of Prop 22 are mostly concerned with "transportation money" - that is the funds normally used for highways and so forth. There are restrictions of the uses of Vehicle Tax revenue, and this proposition goes as far as to repeal even laws (meaning "budgets") that are passed in the future (between Oct 2009 and Nov 2 of this year). This is viewing our state's finances in black and white terms that are not realistic. Forcing money away from the state in one place will mean reductions in funding elsewhere. That's just common sense. So, one likely outcome of Prop 22 will be even less money state-wide for schools and universities as well as less funding for other programs that Progressives feel are important for the common good. | The provisions of Prop 22 are mostly concerned with "transportation money" - that is the funds normally used for highways and so forth. There are restrictions of the uses of Vehicle Tax revenue, and this proposition goes as far as to repeal even laws (meaning "budgets") that are passed in the future (between Oct 2009 and Nov 2 of this year). This is viewing our state's finances in black and white terms that are not realistic. Forcing money away from the state in one place will mean reductions in funding elsewhere. That's just common sense. So, one likely outcome of Prop 22 will be even less money state-wide for schools and universities as well as less funding for other programs that Progressives feel are important for the common good. | ||
| − | In conclusion, let's not try to manage our budgets piece-meal or by | + | In conclusion, let's not try to manage our budgets piece-meal or by whatever bill of goods The Big Money can sell to the voters in this election or that. Instead let's change out the people we send to Sacramento to represent us and then those chosen representatives ''do their job.'' |
== Comments == | == Comments == | ||
| − | Please place all commentary into the | + | Please place all commentary into the [[Talk:Props_2010/22/ | Discussion]] page. Click the "+" sign to add a new section. |
| − | + | Return to [[Props_2010/]] | |
Latest revision as of 17:00, 25 July 2010
PROPOSITION 22 -- LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Prohibits state from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting use of revenues dedicated to local government services, community redevelopment projects, and transportation projects and services. Prohibits the state from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Major funding support provided by League of California Cities and California Alliance for Jobs (a group including Associated General Contractors, Operating Engineers, Carpenters Union, and Association of Engineering Construction Employers).
Proposed GPCA Position
GPCA urges a "No" vote on this matter
Analysis
For Greens and Progressives this proposition appears to be a good thing: local levels of government are presumably more responsive to local issues therefore this will lead to more grassroots control of the purse. And there is no doubt that the state government has been somewhat high-handed recently in its approach to struggling cities and counties.
However, this proposition is just one more example of "budgeting by ballot-box". We elect representatives to go to Sacramento and make budget decisions. That is how our Republic is supposed to work. And if those representatives cannot get the job done, then we go to the polls and replace them (of course, we naturally believe these replacements should be Greens).
Yet through use (some would say "abuse") of the direct democracy system, each election cycle leaves our State Senators and Assemblymembers, from whatever party, with less and less room to move when trying to manage our state's affairs. This has led us to more partisanship, more back-room deal making (ex: Prop 24), and more bad government.
The provisions of Prop 22 are mostly concerned with "transportation money" - that is the funds normally used for highways and so forth. There are restrictions of the uses of Vehicle Tax revenue, and this proposition goes as far as to repeal even laws (meaning "budgets") that are passed in the future (between Oct 2009 and Nov 2 of this year). This is viewing our state's finances in black and white terms that are not realistic. Forcing money away from the state in one place will mean reductions in funding elsewhere. That's just common sense. So, one likely outcome of Prop 22 will be even less money state-wide for schools and universities as well as less funding for other programs that Progressives feel are important for the common good.
In conclusion, let's not try to manage our budgets piece-meal or by whatever bill of goods The Big Money can sell to the voters in this election or that. Instead let's change out the people we send to Sacramento to represent us and then those chosen representatives do their job.
Comments
Please place all commentary into the Discussion page. Click the "+" sign to add a new section.
Return to Props_2010/
